ACM-source attribution: Complete text and visual regions converted directly from the ACM Hypertext and Social Media 2022 proceedings PDF, DOI 10.1145/3511095.3532573.

SIDEWAYS-2022 @ HT-2022: 7th International Workshop on Social Media World Sensors

Mario Cataldi m.cataldi@iut.univ-paris8.fr University of Paris 8 Paris, France

Claudio Schifanella

Luigi Di Caro luigi.dicaro@unito.it University of Turin Turin, Italy

claudio.schifanella@unito.it University of Turin Turin, Italy

ABSTRACT

messages share content about any aspect of their life (public or private), exchanging opinions on a variety of topics and creating and discussing a wide range of events.

This seventh edition of the workshop aims at bringing together academics and practitioners from different areas to promote the vision of social media as social sensors.

Companies like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have unlocked new ways for people to connect, curate, and consume and also see the surrounding reality. Social Media have changed and continue to change how we interact with the web - how content is distributed, discovered, and delivered. They provide inexpensive communication medium that allows anyone to quickly reach and interact with many other users, modifying their point of view and even their interpretation of the facts. Consequently, in these platforms anyone can publish content and anyone interested in the content can obtain it, representing a transformative revolution in our society. These aspects make social media services the most powerful sensor for any possible interpretation of reality, by also bringing into question the researchers in defining what reality means. The aim of this workshop is to ask researchers to enter such view, by studying how social media can be used in a real-time scenario to detect events and their interpretations.

Nowadays, Social media platforms represent freely-accessible information networks allowing registered (and unregistered) users to read, share and broadcast messages referring to a potentiallyunlimited range of arguments, by also exploiting the immediateness of handy smart devices. This long-running workshop aims at focusing the attention on a particular perspective of these powerful communication channels, which is that of social sensors , where each user reacts in real time to the underlying reality by providing some own interpretation.

Technologies and AI artifacts may support automatic or semiautomatic applications for information detection and integration, offering sideways to the existing authoritative information media and the information reported by the surrounding community.

CCS CONCEPTS

In light of this, we stress the importance of recognizing this real-time sensor role of Social Media and propose a research venue to discuss about it. We will encourage the submission from both academia and industry. We will seek the participation of both industry and the public sector in the PC Contributions can be submitted as full, short and demo papers, referring to both mature applications and proof of concepts.

• Human-centered computing ; • Information systems ;

KEYWORDS

social media, sensors, topic detection, data mining

ACM Reference Format:

Luigi Di Caro, Mario Cataldi, and Claudio Schifanella. 2022. SIDEWAYS-2022 @ HT-2022: 7th International Workshop on Social Media World Sensors. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT ’22), June 28-July 1, 2022, Barcelona, Spain. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3511095.3532573

2 RELATED WORK

In the last decade the enormous amount of contents generated by web users created new challenges and new research questions within the data mining community. Here we first report related work about aggregation, recommendation and propagation of information from large scale social networks. We therefore survey the related work on automatic detection of events within usergenerated environments and, finally, we analyze the current state of the art about personalization and user context analysis.

1 INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, online social media platforms have become the most popular communication system all over the world. In fact, due to the accessibility and the public of these platforms, users tend to shift from traditional communication tools (such as traditional web sites) to these social services. For example, 68 percent of U.S. adults get news on social media in 2018, while in 2012, only 49 percent reported seeing news on social media. Billions of messages, in many different formats, are appearing daily in these services such as Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc. The authors of these

2.1 Aggregation, Propagation and Recommendation through Social Networks

A first issue when dealing with heterogeneous data sources is the aggregation of the content through filtering and merging techniques. Considering Social Networks as a source of text data, many web services like TweetTabs1 aggregate messages and links through user-friendly interfaces. In general, clustering techniques help in finding groups of similar contents that can be further filtered using labeling techniques [Treeratpituk and Callan 2006].

Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s). HT ’22, June 28-July 1, 2022, Barcelona, Spain

1http://tweettabs.com

https://doi.org/10.1145/3511095.3532573

265

HT ’22, June 28-July 1, 2022, Barcelona, Spain

Di Caro et al.

While these services simply aggregate messages and/or links, one of the most explored tasks in mining of text entries streams from social media is the recommendation of topics, URLs, friends, and so forth. So far, two main high-level approaches have been studied: collaborative filtering and content-based techniques. While the first aims at selecting and proposing content by looking at what similar users have already selected (as in [Goldberg et al. 1992]), the second analyzes the semantics of the content without considering its origin (as in [Hassan et al. 2009]). More recently, hybrid approaches have been also proposed by [Balabanovic and Shoham 1997; Melville et al. 2001].

Recommendation systems can differ on what they recommend: URLs (as in [Chen et al. 2010]), users that share same interests (as in [Chen et al. 2009]) and tags in folksonomy-based systems (like the approach proposed in [Jäschke et al. 2007]).

Another issue when dealing with huge, time-sensitive, and usergenerated text content is the analysis of how such information spreads through the blogosphere or a social network. Generally speaking, research on flows of information in networks initially started from the analogy with the spread of a disease in a social environment. This model is based on the following disease life cycle: someone is first susceptible to the disease and then, if exposed to the disease by an infectious contact, he becomes infected (and infectious) with some probability. In general, there exist two main approaches to model propagation, namely threshold models [Granovetter 1978] and cascade models [Goldenberg et al. 2001]. While the first one treats the problem as a chain-reaction of influence where each node in the network obeys to a monotone activation function, in the second one nodes close to each others have some chance to influence each others as well.

In [Gruhl et al. 2004], the authors studied the dynamics of web environments at topic- and user-level, inducing propagation networks from a sequence of posts in the blogosphere. [Goyal et al. 2010] studied how to learn influence probabilities from a log of past propagations in the Flickr2 community. [Yang and Leskovec 2010] developed the Linear Influence model, where the influence functions of individual nodes govern the overall rate of diffusion through the network. In [Cha et al. 2010] the authors present a comparison between three measures of influence: in-degree, retweets and mentions in Twitter, investigating the dynamics of users’ influence across topics and time. Still, [Yang and Counts 2010] proposed a model to capture properties of information diffusion like speed, scale, and range.

Focusing on Twitter-based approaches, Twopular3 represents an example from which it is possible to analyze trends along a timeline. In general, several studies examined topics and their changes across time in dynamic text corpora. The general approach orders and clusters the documents according to the timestamps, analyzing the relative distributions (see also [Griffiths and Steyvers 2004]). [Zhao et al. 2007] represent social text streams as multi-graphs, where each node represents a social actor and each edge represents the information flow between two actors. In [Favenza et al. 2008; Qi and Candan 2006], the authors present a system which uses curve analysis of frequencies for automatic segmentation of topics.

2http://www.flickr.com
3http://twopular.com

[Wu et al. 2010] use the tolerance rough set model to enrich the set of feature words into an approximated latent semantic space, from which they extract hot topics by a complete-link clustering. [Abrol and Khan 2010] analyze tweets in order to predict whether the user is looking for news or not, and determine keywords that can be added to her web search query. [Asur et al. 2011] explore the longevity of trending topics on Twitter, and analyze the role of users in the emergence of trends. The role of the users, their collaboration and the influence among them has been also extensively studied in social networks [Katz et al. 1997], from qualitative studies on cooperation behaviors [Chubin 1976; Crane 1969; Shapin 1981] to more quantitative approaches [de Beaver and Rosen 1979; Melin and Persson 1996]. The latter includes collaboration networkbased studies (because of a social network can be easily seen as a social network where people form teams to produce some results), which are generally aiming at understanding the structural determinants and patterns of collaboration [Barabasi et al. 2002; Di Caro et al. 2012; Newman 2001; Schifanella et al. 2012]. Such networks have been deeply analyzed by looking at properties like network topology, size and evolution [Hou et al. 2008; Moon et al. 2010].

[Chen et al. 2003] were the first to present an aging theory based on a biological metaphor. Using this approach, the work presented by [Wang et al. 2008] is able to rank topics from online news streams through the concept of burstiness . The burstiness of a term, already introduced by [He et al. 2007], is computed with a χ -statistic on its temporal contingency table. Although this work shares our goal, it is based on the concepts of user attention and the media focus, whereas our proposed approach is independent from them and it is assumed to be less complex and more general.

2.2 Event Identification in Social Networks

Identifying events in real time on Social Networks is a challenging problem, due to the heterogeneity and immense scale of the data. In fact, as already reported in the Introduction, users post messages with a variety of purposes. For this, while many contents are not specifically related to any particular real-world event, informative event messages nevertheless abound.

Regarding e.g. the classification of single tweets, [Sriram et al. 2010] define a typology of five generic classes of tweets (news, events, opinions, deals, and private messages) in order to improve information filtering and recognize events. The research works proposed in [Becker et al. 2010, 2011; Sankaranarayanan et al. 2009] focused on identifying events in social media in general, and on Twitter. Recent works on this social network started to process data as a stream with the goal of identifying events of a particular type (e.g., news events , earthquakes, etc). [Petrović et al. 2010]) identify the first Twitter message associated with an event in order to analyze the starting point of the related information flow.

The real-time social content can also be seen as a sensor that captures what is happening in the world: similarly to the recommendation task, this can be exploited for a zero-delay information broadcasting system that detects emerging concepts. Generally, all the techniques rely on some measure of importance of the keywords. [Bun et al. 2002] present the TF ∗ PDF algorithm which extends the well-known TF − IDF to avoid the collapse of important terms when they appear in many text documents. Indeed, the

266

HT ’22, June 28-July 1, 2022, Barcelona, Spain

SIDEWAYS-2022 @ HT-2022: 7th International Workshop on Social Media World Sensors

IDF component decreases the frequency value for a keyword when it is frequently used. Considering different newswire sources or channels, the weight of a term from a single channel is linearly proportional to the term’s frequency within it, while it is exponentially proportional to the ratio of documents that contain the term in the channel itself. [Lampos and Cristianini 2012] presented a supervised learning system for the extraction of events from unstructured textual information that relies on geo-tagged Twitter posts. [Takeshi Sakaki and Matsuo 2010] consider Twitter as a social sensor for detecting large scale events like earthquakes, typhoons and traffic jams. The authors analyze the context of such keyword in order to discriminate them as positive or negative (the sentence “Someone is shaking hands with my boss” should be captured as negative even though it contains the term “shake”). In [AlSumait et al. 2008] the authors present a system called OLDA (Online Topic Model) which permits to automatically capture the thematic patterns and identifies emerging topics of text streams and their changes over time.

2.3 Content Personalization

Since our Workshop aims at including the topic of personalization of emerging topics, we also cover here the relevant works that have been done in this field. Most of the literature refers to this task as “personalization of search results”, or “user-driven personalization” (as in the works proposed in [Noll and Meinel 2007; Sugiyama et al. 2004; Teevan et al. 2005b; Ziegler et al. 2005]). As stated by [Teevan et al. 2005a], the motivation behind the interest around this area of research is based on the reasonable assumption that different users generally expect different information even with the same query. There obviously exist several approaches of facing such a task. For instance, depending on the domain, one may be interested in re-ranking the results based on their relevance [Noll and Meinel 2007; Teevan et al. 2005b], rather then diversify or visualize them (as in [Agrawal et al. 2009; Candan et al. 2012; Di Caro et al. 2011; Lin et al. 2010; Radlinski and Dumais 2006; Wedig and Madani 2006]). Still, the actual personalization and visualization of contents (whether they are search results or emerging topics as in our case) could be made by leveraging different kinds of data: users’ contents [Cantador et al. 2010; Xu et al. 2008], ontologies [Gauch et al. 2003; Han et al. 2010; Sieg et al. 2007], and users’s social network and activity [Carmel et al. 2009; Wang and Jin 2010]. Given this brief overview, our system can be classified as a re-ranking approach that makes use of the users’ contents, i.e., the tweets posted by them. In addition to this simple scheme, we also wanted to take into account the temporal aspect associated to the tweets in order to weight more what has been recently posted, and the other way around.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the organizing committee of HT2022 for giving us the opportunity to organize the workshop. Second, we would like to thank our program committee members. And of course, we would like to thank all the authors of the workshop for submitting their research works and for their participation.

REFERENCES

Satyen Abrol and Latifur Khan. 2010. TWinner: understanding news queries with geo-content using Twitter. In GIR ’10: Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Geographic Information Retrieval (Zurich, Switzerland). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–8.

Rakesh Agrawal, Sreenivas Gollapudi, Alan Halverson, and Samuel Ieong. 2009. Diversifying search results. In Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (Barcelona, Spain) (WSDM ’09) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/1498759.1498766

Loulwah AlSumait, Daniel Barbará, and Carlotta Domeniconi. 2008. On-line LDA: Adaptive Topic Models for Mining Text Streams with Applications to Topic Detection and Tracking. In Proceedings of the 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM ’08) . IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2008.140

Sitaram Asur, Bernardo A. Huberman, Gábor Szabó, and Chunyan Wang. 2011. Trends in Social Media: Persistence and Decay. In Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media . The AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California.

Marko Balabanovic and Yoav Shoham. 1997. Fab: Content-based, collaborative recommendation. Commun. ACM 40 (1997), 66–72.

A. L. Barabasi, H. Jeong, Z. Neda, E. Ravasz, A. Schubert, and T. Vicsek. 2002. Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 311, 3-4 (2002), 590–614.

Hila Becker, Mor Naaman, and Luis Gravano. 2010. Learning similarity metrics for event identification in social media. In WSDM . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 291–300.

H. Becker, M. Naaman, and L. Gravano. 2011. Beyond trending topics: Real-world event identification on Twitter. In Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media . The AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California.

Khoo Khyou Bun, Mitsuru Ishizuka, and Bun Mitsuru Ishizuka. 2002. Topic Extraction from News Archive Using TFPDF Algorithm. In Proceedings of 3rd Int’l Conference on Web Informtion Systems Engineering (WISE 2002), IEEE Computer Soc . IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 73–82.

K Selçuk Candan, Luigi Di Caro, and Maria Luisa Sapino. 2012. PhC: Multiresolution visualization and exploration of text corpora with parallel hierarchical coordinates. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 3, 2 (2012), 1–36.

Iván Cantador, Alejandro Bellogín, and David Vallet. 2010. Content-based recommendation in social tagging systems. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Recommender systems (Barcelona, Spain) (RecSys ’10) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 237–240. https://doi.org/10.1145/1864708.1864756

David Carmel, Naama Zwerdling, Ido Guy, Shila Ofek-Koifman, Nadav Har’el, Inbal Ronen, Erel Uziel, Sivan Yogev, and Sergey Chernov. 2009. Personalized social search based on the user’s social network. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management (Hong Kong, China) (CIKM ’09) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1227–1236. https://doi.org/10.1145/1645953.1646109

Meeyoung Cha, Hamed Haddadi, Fabricio Benevenuto, and Krishna P. Gummadi. 2010. Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy. In Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) (Washington, DC, USA). The AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California, 10–17.

Chien Chin Chen, Yao-Tsung Chen, Yeali S. Sun, and Meng Chang Chen. 2003. Life Cycle Modeling of News Events Using Aging Theory. In ECML . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 47–59.

Jilin Chen, Werner Geyer, Casey Dugan, Michael Muller, and Ido Guy. 2009. Make new friends, but keep the old: recommending people on social networking sites. In CHI ’09: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems (Boston, MA, USA). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 201–210. https: //doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518735

Jilin Chen, Rowan Nairn, Les Nelson, Michael Bernstein, and Ed Chi. 2010. Short and tweet: experiments on recommending content from information streams. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI ’10) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1185–1194. https: //doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753503

Daryl E. Chubin. 1976. The Conceptualization of Scientific Specialties. The Sociological Quarterly 17, 4 (1976), 448–476.

D. Crane. 1969. Social Structure in a Group of Scientists: A Test of the “Invisible College” Hypothesis. American Sociological Review 3 (1969), 335–352.

D. de Beaver and R. Rosen. 1979. Studies in scientific collaboration. Scientometrics 1, 2 (1979), 133–149.

Luigi Di Caro, K Selçuk Candan, and Maria Luisa Sapino. 2011. Navigating within news collections using tag-flakes. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 22, 2 (2011), 120–139.

Luigi Di Caro, Mario Cataldi, and Claudio Schifanella. 2012. The d-index: Discovering dependences among scientific collaborators from their bibliographic data records. Scientometrics (2012), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0762-1

Alfredo Favenza, Mario Cataldi, Maria Luisa Sapino, and Alberto Messina. 2008. Topic Development Based Refinement of Audio-Segmented Television News. In NLDB ’08 (London, UK). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 226–232. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-540-69858-623

Susan Gauch, Jason Chaffee, and Alaxander Pretschner. 2003. Ontology-based personalized search and browsing. Web Intelligence and Agent Systems 1 (December 2003),

267

HT ’22, June 28-July 1, 2022, Barcelona, Spain

Di Caro et al.

219–234. Issue 3-4. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1016416.1016421

David Goldberg, David Nichols, Brian M. Oki, and Douglas Terry. 1992. Using collaborative filtering to weave an information tapestry. Commun. ACM 35, 12 (1992), 61–70.

J. Goldenberg, B. Libai, and E. Muller. 2001. Talk of the network: A complex systems look at the underlying process of word-of-mouth. Marketing letters 12, 3 (2001), 211–223.

Amit Goyal, Francesco Bonchi, and Laks V.S. Lakshmanan. 2010. Learning influence probabilities in social networks. In Proceedings of the third ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (New York, New York, USA) (WSDM ’10) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1145/1718487.1718518

Mark Granovetter. 1978. Threshold Models of Collective Behavior. Amer. J. Sociology 83, 6 (1978), 1420–1443. https://doi.org/doi:10.1086/226707

T. L. Griffiths and M. Steyvers. 2004. Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, Suppl. 1 (April 2004), 5228–5235.

Daniel Gruhl, R. Guha, David Liben-Nowell, and Andrew Tomkins. 2004. Information diffusion through blogspace. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web (New York, NY, USA) (WWW ’04) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 491–501. https://doi.org/10.1145/988672.988739

Xiaogang Han, Zhiqi Shen, Chunyan Miao, and Xudong Luo. 2010. Folksonomybased ontological user interest profile modeling and its application in personalized search. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Active media technology (Toronto, Canada) (AMT’10) . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 34–46. http: //dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1886192.1886201

Ahmed Hassan, Dragomir R. Radev, Junghoo Cho, and Amruta Joshi. 2009. Content Based Recommendation and Summarization in the Blogosphere. In Proceedings of the 3rd International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) (San Jose, California, USA). The AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California, 34–41.

Qi He, Kuiyu Chang, and Ee-Peng Lim. 2007. Using Burstiness to Improve Clustering of Topics in News Streams. Data Mining, IEEE International Conference on 0 (2007), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2007.17

H. Hou, H. Kretschmer, and Z. Liu. 2008. The structure of scientific collaboration networks in Scientometrics. Scientometrics 75, 2 (2008), 189–202.

Robert Jäschke, Leandro Marinho, Andreas Hotho, Lars Schmidt-Thieme, and Gerd Stumme. 2007. Tag Recommendations in Folksonomies. In PKDD 2007 (Warsaw, Poland). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 506–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-540-74976-952

J. Sylvan Katz, J. Sylvan Katz, Ben R. Martin, and Ben R. Martin. 1997. What is Research Collaboration? Research Policy 26 (1997), 1–18.

Vasileios Lampos and Nello Cristianini. 2012. Nowcasting Events from the Social Web with Statistical Learning. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 3, 4, Article 72 (Sept. 2012), 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2337542.2337557

Gu-Li Lin, Hong Peng, Qian-Li Ma, Jia Wei, and Jiang-Wei Qin. 2010. Improving diversity in Web search results re-ranking using absorbing random walks. In Machine Learning and Cybernetics (ICMLC), 2010 International Conference on , Vol. 5. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 2116 –2421. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICMLC.2010.5580733

G. Melin and O. Persson. 1996. Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics 36 (1996), 363–377. Issue 3.

Prem Melville, Raymond J. Mooney, and Ramadass Nagarajan. 2001. Content-Boosted Collaborative Filtering. In In Proceedings of the 2001 SIGIR Workshop on Recommender Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 16–23.

S. Moon, J. You, H. Kwak, D. Kim, and H. Jeong. 2010. Understanding topological mesoscale features in community mining. In Communication Systems and Networks (COMSNETS), 2010 Second International Conference on . IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1–10.

M. E. J. Newman. 2001. Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E 64, 1 (June 2001). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevE.64.016131

Michael G. Noll and Christoph Meinel. 2007. Web search personalization via social bookmarking and tagging. In Proceedings of the 6th international The semantic web and 2nd Asian conference on Asian semantic web conference (Busan, Korea) (ISWC’07/ASWC’07) . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 367–380. http://dl.acm. org/citation.cfm?id=1785162.1785190

Saša Petrović, Miles Osborne, and Victor Lavrenko. 2010. Streaming first story detection with application to Twitter. In Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Los Angeles, California) (HLT ’10) . Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 181–189. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 1857999.1858020

Yan Qi and K. Selçuk Candan. 2006. CUTS: CUrvature-based development pattern analysis and segmentation for blogs and other Text Streams. In HYPERTEXT ’06 (Odense, Denmark). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 1149941.1149944

Filip Radlinski and Susan Dumais. 2006. Improving personalized web search using result diversification. In Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (Seattle, Washington, USA) (SIGIR ’06) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 691–692. https://doi.org/10.1145/

1148170.1148320

J. Sankaranarayanan, H. Samet, B.E. Teitler, M.D. Lieberman, and J. Sperling. 2009. Twitterstand: news in tweets. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems . ACM, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 42–51.

Claudio Schifanella, Luigi Di Caro, Mario Cataldi, and Marie-Aude Aufaure. 2012. The D-INDEX: a web environment for analyzing dependences among scientific collaborators. In KDD . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1520–1523.

Steven Shapin. 1981. Laboratory life. The social construction of scientific facts. Medical History 25, 3 (1981), 341–342.

Ahu Sieg, Bamshad Mobasher, and Robin Burke. 2007. Web search personalization with ontological user profiles. In Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM conference on Conference on information and knowledge management (Lisbon, Portugal) (CIKM ’07) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 525–534. https://doi.org/10.1145/1321440.1321515

Bharath Sriram, Dave Fuhry, Engin Demir, Hakan Ferhatosmanoglu, and Murat Demirbas. 2010. Short text classification in twitter to improve information filtering. In Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (Geneva, Switzerland) (SIGIR ’10) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 841–842. https://doi.org/10.1145/1835449.1835643

Kazunari Sugiyama, Kenji Hatano, and Masatoshi Yoshikawa. 2004. Adaptive web search based on user profile constructed without any effort from users. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web (New York, NY, USA) (WWW ’04) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1145/988672. 988764

Makoto Okazaki Takeshi Sakaki and Yutaka Matsuo. 2010. Earthquake Shakes Twitter Users: Real-time Event Detection by Social Sensors. In WWW 2010 (Raleigh, NC, USA). ACM, New York, NY, USA.

J. Teevan, S.T. Dumais, and E. Horvitz. 2005a. Beyond the commons: Investigating the value of personalizing web search. In Proceedings of the Workshop on New Technologies for Personalized Information Access (PIA) . 84–92.

Jaime Teevan, Susan T. Dumais, and Eric Horvitz. 2005b. Personalizing search via automated analysis of interests and activities. In Proceedings of the 28th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (Salvador, Brazil) (SIGIR ’05) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 449–456. https: //doi.org/10.1145/1076034.1076111

Pucktada Treeratpituk and Jamie Callan. 2006. Automatically labeling hierarchical clusters. In dg.o ’06: Proceedings of the 2006 international conference on Digital government research (San Diego, California). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1145/1146598.1146650

Canhui Wang, Min Zhang, Liyun Ru, and Shaoping Ma. 2008. Automatic online news topic ranking using media focus and user attention based on aging theory. In CIKM ’08 (Napa Valley, California, USA). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1033–1042. https://doi.org/10.1145/1458082.1458219

Qihua Wang and Hongxia Jin. 2010. Exploring online social activities for adaptive search personalization. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management (Toronto, ON, Canada) (CIKM ’10) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 999–1008. https://doi.org/10.1145/1871437.1871564

Steve Wedig and Omid Madani. 2006. A large-scale analysis of query logs for assessing personalization opportunities. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (Philadelphia, PA, USA) (KDD ’06) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 742–747. https://doi.org/10.1145/1150402.1150497

Yonghui Wu, Yuxin Ding, Xiaolong Wang, and Jun Xu. 2010. On-line Hot Topic Recommendation Using Tolerance Rough Set Based Topic Clustering. Journal of Computers 5, 4 (2010), 549–556.

Shengliang Xu, Shenghua Bao, Ben Fei, Zhong Su, and Yong Yu. 2008. Exploring folksonomy for personalized search. In Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (Singapore, Singapore) (SIGIR ’08) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1145/1390334.1390363

J. Yang and S. Counts. 2010. Predicting the speed, scale, and range of information diffusion in twitter. In Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) (Washington, DC, USA). The AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California, 355–358.

J. Yang and J. Leskovec. 2010. Modeling information diffusion in implicit networks. In Data Mining (ICDM), 2010 IEEE 10th International Conference on . IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 599–608.

Qiankun Zhao, Prasenjit Mitra, and Bi Chen. 2007. Temporal and information flow based event detection from social text streams. In Proceedings of the 22nd national conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 2 (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) (AAAI’07) . AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California, 1501–1506. http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=1619797.1619886

Cai-Nicolas Ziegler, Sean M. McNee, Joseph A. Konstan, and Georg Lausen. 2005. Improving recommendation lists through topic diversification. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web (Chiba, Japan) (WWW ’05) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/1060745.1060754

268

Rendered visual and table regions

PDF page 1.

Rendered visual/table region